What's In A Word? On Suzerainty

In a recent article, "Behold, Schrodinger's Matriarchy", I had tackled the question of whether Matriarchy is in fact egalitarian or not.  The short answer could be summed up in the following three points:

1. Matriarchy is both egalitarian in one sense and not egalitarian in another sense at the same time.  (Hence, the nickname I gave it, "Schrodinger's Matriarchy")
2. Women would have more power and more responsibility, while men would have less power and less responsibility.
3. And such a paradigm of society would be mutually beneficial for both Women and men in both theory and practice.

But I had indeed forgotten that we also need a word that describes such a phenomenon well.  There are almost no words in the English language or any other modern language that really do it justice, save for one, albeit a rather obscure one at that.

Enter suzerainty.  Per Wikipedia, emphasis mine:

A suzerain (/ˈsuːzərən, -reɪn/, from Old French sus "above" + soverain "supreme, chief") is a person, state or polity who has supremacy and dominant influence over the foreign policy and economic relations of another subordinate party or polity, but allows internal autonomy to that subordinate.  Where the subordinate polity is called a vassal, vassal state or tributary state, the dominant party is called the suzerain. The rights and obligations of a vassal are called vassalage, and the rights and obligations of a suzerain are called suzerainty.

Suzerainty differs from sovereignty in that the dominant power does not exercise centralized governance over the vassals, allowing tributary states to be technically self-ruling but enjoy only limited independence. Although the situation has existed in a number of historical empires, it is considered difficult to reconcile with 20th- or 21st-century concepts of international law, in which sovereignty is a binary concept, which either exists or does not. While a sovereign state can agree by treaty to become a protectorate of a stronger power, modern international law does not recognise any way of making this relationship compulsory on the weaker power. Suzerainty is a practical, de facto situation, rather than a legal, de jure one.

Current examples include Bhutan and India. India is responsible for military training, arms supplies, and the air defense of Bhutan.

While the word is typically used at the macro level, especially in the context of international relations, there is no reason why it cannot also be used at the micro level as well between people (of different genders, in this case).  "As above, so below, " as the saying goes.

Note the very important nuance baked into the term.  (Sometimes the term "sphere of influence" is also used as an almost-synonym, although the latter is generally a weaker and less hierarchical term.)

People often tend to think of sovereignty as a strict binary, but it need not be.  Suzerainty is a sort of middle ground between full sovereignty and non-sovereignty.  One could say that under Matriarchy, Women would have sovereignty over themselves as individuals, and men would have sovereignty over themselves as individuals as well, but Women would additionally have suzerainty over men (and certainly NOT the other way around).  Men would thus be vassals relative to Women.

Or as the prophet Leland Mellott would put it:  "Women will manage everything.  Men will manage themselves".  In other words, suzerainty.

So let's spread the word, far and wide!  SUZERAINTY!